What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4852780 about?

The tribunal order states: Premium Real Estate Limited As Agent For Stella Fu must pay [The applicant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4852780?

Compensation: Bedroom 4 was uninhabi…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Heat Pump: $1,175.76 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Heat Pump installation…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852780?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10913596-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4852780 about?

The tribunal order states: Premium Real Estate Limited As Agent For Stella Fu must pay [The applicant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4852780?

Compensation: Bedroom 4 was uninhabi…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Heat Pump: $1,175.76 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Heat Pump installation…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852780?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10913596-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4852780 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4852780 — net $2,796.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Heat Pump	$1,175.76	Heat Pump
Compensation: Heat Pump installation and labour	$600.00	Heat Pump installation and labour
Compensation: Bedroom 4 was uninhabitable during the summer between 10/12/21 and 14/02/22	$1,000.00	Bedroom 4 was uninhabitable during the summer between 10/12/21 and 14/02/22
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,796.20
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,796.20

Order

Premium Real Estate Limited As Agent For Stella Fu must pay [The applicant/s] $2,796.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation: Heat Pump$1,175.76 Compensation: Heat Pump installation and labour$600.00 Compensation: Bedroom 4 was uninhabitable during the summer between 10/12/21 and 14/02/22) $1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,796.20 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$2,796.20

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing in person. [Tenant 1] was the main person addressing me.
Ms Griffin attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenants commenced the tenancy on 10 December 2021 and installed a heat pump on 14 February 2022. Background
This tenancy dispute involves [The tenant/s], and Ms. Anna Griffin, representing the landlord, regarding the habitable condition of Bedroom 4 at [Tenancy address suppressed]. The dispute centres on whether the room meets legal ventilation standards and whether the tenants should be compensated for the cost of installing a heat pump due to excessive heat in the bedroom, which made it uninhabitable.
I issued an interim decision dated 12 July 2024 where conflicting reports on the property’s compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards and New Zealand Building Code (NZBC) were discussed. The tenants submitted evidence of an email dated 14 June 2024 from [Witness 1], Team Leader at [Council], confirming non-compliance with ventilation standards, and further expert analysis by [Witness 2]. Tenants' Arguments and Submissions Inadequate Ventilation in Bedroom 4
[The tenant/s] claimed that Bedroom 4 was uninhabitable due to high temperatures that exceeded 40°C during the summer months. Their daughter, who used the room, suffered from migraines and difficulty sleeping due to the extreme heat. The tenants pointed out that the windows in Bedroom 4 failed to meet the NZBC Clause G4, which mandates that the total openable window area must be no less than 5% of the room’s floor area. They submitted an email from [Witness 1] of [Council], confirming that the room's openable window area was below the required 5%. Council’s Error in Issuing a Code Compliance Certificate (“CCC”)
According to the tenants, the room’s non-compliance should have been identified when the CCC was issued by [Council] in 2000. [Witness 1]'s correspondence noted that it was not uncommon for plans from that period to be incomplete or unclear regarding compliance with ventilation standards, which led to the room being erroneously certified as compliant. The tenants argued that the CCC should not have been granted, and the issue has remained unresolved since the house’s construction. Efforts to Address the Issue
The tenants testified that they repeatedly contacted the property manager, Ms. Griffin, seeking assistance in addressing the overheating issue in the bedroom. They requested that the landlord take action, including possibly installing a cooling or ventilation solution. After receiving no help, they were left with no option but to install a heat pump themselves at their own cost, totalling approximately $1,775.76, including installation and labour. Claim for Compensation
The tenants argued that they should be compensated for the cost of installing the heat pump, which was necessary to make the room habitable. They also claimed exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to address the problem in a timely manner, resulting in prolonged discomfort and inconvenience. Landlord's Arguments and Submissions
Ms. Griffin, representing the landlord, submitted two Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) assessment reports, one from October 2020 and the other from May 2024, both indicating that the property complied with the HHS, including ventilation requirements. However, the focus of these reports was on overall compliance with HHS and not the specific non-compliance of Bedroom 4 with the NZBC. Exemption Under Building Code Standards
Ms. Griffin contended that Bedroom 4 was exempt from the HHS ventilation requirements because the house was built before the introduction of the standards. She emphasised that the house met the building standards at the time it was constructed and received a CCC, which, in her view, indicated that the house was compliant with ventilation requirements. Heat Pump Installation Not Required
Ms Griffin further argued that a heat pump is not a ventilation device and that the tenants installed it at their discretion to manage the temperature of the room. Ms. Griffin maintained that the landlord was not obligated to reimburse the tenants for the cost of the heat pump, as the HHS or the RTA did not require it. Alternative Bedroom Options
Ms. Griffin also pointed out that the tenants had other bedrooms available in the house that were equipped with heat pumps and proper ventilation. She questioned why the tenants continued to use Bedroom 4 when alternative rooms were available. Council’s Email and Expert Report Email from [Council] Team Leader
[Witness 1]’s email, dated 14 June 2024, confirmed that Bedroom 4’s ventilation did not meet the requirements of the NZBC Clause G4 at the time of the building’s construction. The openable area of the windows in Bedroom 4 was less than 5% of the floor area. This evidence directly contradicted the landlord’s assertion that the room was compliant with ventilation standards. Expert Report by [Witness 2]
[Witness 2], a qualified carpenter with 37 years of experience and an active licenced building practitioner (Carpentry, Site 1 Licence), corroborated the tenants’ claims, stating that the room’s design did not meet ventilation standards and that the heat pump installed by the tenants was a reasonable and practical solution to mitigate the overheating issue.
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. My view
After careful consideration of the submissions, expert reports, and additional evidence, I find in favour of the tenants for the following reasons. Non-Compliance with Ventilation Standards
The evidence from [Council], as well as the expert report by [Witness 2], confirms that Bedroom 4 did not meet the required ventilation standards at the time the building was constructed. The windows provided less than 5% openable area, which is below the NZBC’s 5% requirement. The landlord’s argument that the house complied with the standards of the time is therefore not persuasive, as the council itself confirmed that the ventilation standards were not met. For instance, [Witness 1] noted that the conditions of issuing the CCC include “Ventilation to outside air to be provided to comply with NZBC Clause G4.”
In other words, the house does not meet the conditions for granting the CCC until the ventilation issue has been addressed. This is a matter between the Council and the landlord. Inadequacy of Healthy Homes Standards Reports
While the landlord provided reports indicating compliance with the HHS, these reports do not address the specific ventilation issue in Bedroom 4. As such, the reports submitted by the landlord have not addressed the fundamental issue that Bedroom 4 remains non-compliant with NZBC Clause G4 until the landlord takes action to address it.
I do not accept Ms Griffin’s argument that “The house was built before the healthy homes standards legislation was introduced. The house complied with the building standards of the time; therefore, in this case, it is exempt from this requirement of the healthy homes standards.” because non-compliance has been ongoing until the landlord complies with the conditions of granting the CCC. Heat Pump as a Reasonable Solution
The tenants' installation of the heat pump was necessary and reasonable to mitigate the excessive heat in Bedroom 4. Given the room’s non-compliance with ventilation standards and the landlord’s refusal to address the issue, the tenants' taking corrective measures was justified. The heat pump was the most practical solution available.
In the present case, the heat pump is not a device to “ventilate” Bedroom 4. It is a device to “cool” the temperature in Bedroom 4 if necessary. Landlord’s Responsibility Under the RTA
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) requires landlords to ensure compliance with building, health, and safety standards. The non-compliance of Bedroom 4 with ventilation standards indicates a breach of this responsibility, and the tenants are entitled to compensation for the costs they incurred to make the room habitable.
Accordingly, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not build the house; she purchased it. I am not sure if the conveyancing lawyer informed the landlord that the house might not have met the conditions of the CCC since built before finalising the transaction.
I do not have evidence that the landlord knew the house did not meet the ventilation standards.
In addition, Ms. Griffin's arguments were not meritless. However, they did not address the main issue that the ventilation standards were not met when the house was built and are still not met today.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the landlord intentionally breached her responsibilities under section 45 RTA. I decline to award exemplary damage in favour of the tenants. Compensation
While I have ruled that the landlord did not intentionally breach her responsibilities, this does not mean she is not liable for the inconvenience caused to her tenants.
[Tenant 1] told me she discovered the issue when she moved into the house on 10 December 2021 and raised the issue with the landlord. Because the landlord did not agree to remedy the issue, she installed a heat pump on 14 February 2022.
Accordingly, I consider compensation of $1,000 appropriate because a high temperature in a bedroom without adequate ventilation can cause discomfort to the occupant during the day and night. Furthermore, the inconvenience continued for approximately three months between 10 December 2021 and 14 February 2022. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded in proceedings I grant their application for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4852780 — net $2,796.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Heat Pump	$1,175.76	Heat Pump
Compensation: Heat Pump installation and labour	$600.00	Heat Pump installation and labour
Compensation: Bedroom 4 was uninhabitable during the summer between 10/12/21 and 14/02/22	$1,000.00	Bedroom 4 was uninhabitable during the summer between 10/12/21 and 14/02/22
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,796.20
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,796.20

Order

Premium Real Estate Limited As Agent For Stella Fu must pay [The applicant/s] $2,796.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation: Heat Pump$1,175.76 Compensation: Heat Pump installation and labour$600.00 Compensation: Bedroom 4 was uninhabitable during the summer between 10/12/21 and 14/02/22) $1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,796.20 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$2,796.20

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing in person. [Tenant 1] was the main person addressing me.
Ms Griffin attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenants commenced the tenancy on 10 December 2021 and installed a heat pump on 14 February 2022. Background
This tenancy dispute involves [The tenant/s], and Ms. Anna Griffin, representing the landlord, regarding the habitable condition of Bedroom 4 at [Tenancy address suppressed]. The dispute centres on whether the room meets legal ventilation standards and whether the tenants should be compensated for the cost of installing a heat pump due to excessive heat in the bedroom, which made it uninhabitable.
I issued an interim decision dated 12 July 2024 where conflicting reports on the property’s compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards and New Zealand Building Code (NZBC) were discussed. The tenants submitted evidence of an email dated 14 June 2024 from [Witness 1], Team Leader at [Council], confirming non-compliance with ventilation standards, and further expert analysis by [Witness 2]. Tenants' Arguments and Submissions Inadequate Ventilation in Bedroom 4
[The tenant/s] claimed that Bedroom 4 was uninhabitable due to high temperatures that exceeded 40°C during the summer months. Their daughter, who used the room, suffered from migraines and difficulty sleeping due to the extreme heat. The tenants pointed out that the windows in Bedroom 4 failed to meet the NZBC Clause G4, which mandates that the total openable window area must be no less than 5% of the room’s floor area. They submitted an email from [Witness 1] of [Council], confirming that the room's openable window area was below the required 5%. Council’s Error in Issuing a Code Compliance Certificate (“CCC”)
According to the tenants, the room’s non-compliance should have been identified when the CCC was issued by [Council] in 2000. [Witness 1]'s correspondence noted that it was not uncommon for plans from that period to be incomplete or unclear regarding compliance with ventilation standards, which led to the room being erroneously certified as compliant. The tenants argued that the CCC should not have been granted, and the issue has remained unresolved since the house’s construction. Efforts to Address the Issue
The tenants testified that they repeatedly contacted the property manager, Ms. Griffin, seeking assistance in addressing the overheating issue in the bedroom. They requested that the landlord take action, including possibly installing a cooling or ventilation solution. After receiving no help, they were left with no option but to install a heat pump themselves at their own cost, totalling approximately $1,775.76, including installation and labour. Claim for Compensation
The tenants argued that they should be compensated for the cost of installing the heat pump, which was necessary to make the room habitable. They also claimed exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to address the problem in a timely manner, resulting in prolonged discomfort and inconvenience. Landlord's Arguments and Submissions
Ms. Griffin, representing the landlord, submitted two Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) assessment reports, one from October 2020 and the other from May 2024, both indicating that the property complied with the HHS, including ventilation requirements. However, the focus of these reports was on overall compliance with HHS and not the specific non-compliance of Bedroom 4 with the NZBC. Exemption Under Building Code Standards
Ms. Griffin contended that Bedroom 4 was exempt from the HHS ventilation requirements because the house was built before the introduction of the standards. She emphasised that the house met the building standards at the time it was constructed and received a CCC, which, in her view, indicated that the house was compliant with ventilation requirements. Heat Pump Installation Not Required
Ms Griffin further argued that a heat pump is not a ventilation device and that the tenants installed it at their discretion to manage the temperature of the room. Ms. Griffin maintained that the landlord was not obligated to reimburse the tenants for the cost of the heat pump, as the HHS or the RTA did not require it. Alternative Bedroom Options
Ms. Griffin also pointed out that the tenants had other bedrooms available in the house that were equipped with heat pumps and proper ventilation. She questioned why the tenants continued to use Bedroom 4 when alternative rooms were available. Council’s Email and Expert Report Email from [Council] Team Leader
[Witness 1]’s email, dated 14 June 2024, confirmed that Bedroom 4’s ventilation did not meet the requirements of the NZBC Clause G4 at the time of the building’s construction. The openable area of the windows in Bedroom 4 was less than 5% of the floor area. This evidence directly contradicted the landlord’s assertion that the room was compliant with ventilation standards. Expert Report by [Witness 2]
[Witness 2], a qualified carpenter with 37 years of experience and an active licenced building practitioner (Carpentry, Site 1 Licence), corroborated the tenants’ claims, stating that the room’s design did not meet ventilation standards and that the heat pump installed by the tenants was a reasonable and practical solution to mitigate the overheating issue.
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. My view
After careful consideration of the submissions, expert reports, and additional evidence, I find in favour of the tenants for the following reasons. Non-Compliance with Ventilation Standards
The evidence from [Council], as well as the expert report by [Witness 2], confirms that Bedroom 4 did not meet the required ventilation standards at the time the building was constructed. The windows provided less than 5% openable area, which is below the NZBC’s 5% requirement. The landlord’s argument that the house complied with the standards of the time is therefore not persuasive, as the council itself confirmed that the ventilation standards were not met. For instance, [Witness 1] noted that the conditions of issuing the CCC include “Ventilation to outside air to be provided to comply with NZBC Clause G4.”
In other words, the house does not meet the conditions for granting the CCC until the ventilation issue has been addressed. This is a matter between the Council and the landlord. Inadequacy of Healthy Homes Standards Reports
While the landlord provided reports indicating compliance with the HHS, these reports do not address the specific ventilation issue in Bedroom 4. As such, the reports submitted by the landlord have not addressed the fundamental issue that Bedroom 4 remains non-compliant with NZBC Clause G4 until the landlord takes action to address it.
I do not accept Ms Griffin’s argument that “The house was built before the healthy homes standards legislation was introduced. The house complied with the building standards of the time; therefore, in this case, it is exempt from this requirement of the healthy homes standards.” because non-compliance has been ongoing until the landlord complies with the conditions of granting the CCC. Heat Pump as a Reasonable Solution
The tenants' installation of the heat pump was necessary and reasonable to mitigate the excessive heat in Bedroom 4. Given the room’s non-compliance with ventilation standards and the landlord’s refusal to address the issue, the tenants' taking corrective measures was justified. The heat pump was the most practical solution available.
In the present case, the heat pump is not a device to “ventilate” Bedroom 4. It is a device to “cool” the temperature in Bedroom 4 if necessary. Landlord’s Responsibility Under the RTA
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) requires landlords to ensure compliance with building, health, and safety standards. The non-compliance of Bedroom 4 with ventilation standards indicates a breach of this responsibility, and the tenants are entitled to compensation for the costs they incurred to make the room habitable.
Accordingly, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not build the house; she purchased it. I am not sure if the conveyancing lawyer informed the landlord that the house might not have met the conditions of the CCC since built before finalising the transaction.
I do not have evidence that the landlord knew the house did not meet the ventilation standards.
In addition, Ms. Griffin's arguments were not meritless. However, they did not address the main issue that the ventilation standards were not met when the house was built and are still not met today.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the landlord intentionally breached her responsibilities under section 45 RTA. I decline to award exemplary damage in favour of the tenants. Compensation
While I have ruled that the landlord did not intentionally breach her responsibilities, this does not mean she is not liable for the inconvenience caused to her tenants.
[Tenant 1] told me she discovered the issue when she moved into the house on 10 December 2021 and raised the issue with the landlord. Because the landlord did not agree to remedy the issue, she installed a heat pump on 14 February 2022.
Accordingly, I consider compensation of $1,000 appropriate because a high temperature in a bedroom without adequate ventilation can cause discomfort to the occupant during the day and night. Furthermore, the inconvenience continued for approximately three months between 10 December 2021 and 14 February 2022. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded in proceedings I grant their application for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852780 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852780 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions